Continuity and Constancy ?

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
3:08 AM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
Location
M25 south UK
View My Gallery
How important is history , continuity and constancy ?

My hybrid Leica M 8 - old style appearance interface , new technology , embraces , through my 1933 Leica II Elmar / 1950s Elmar / Summitar - and the Russian Zorki / Fed emergence , an entire evolution .

O.K. ASdee needs continuity / constancy , in what to me is a snapshot , fragmented world , but , together with my 4/3rds Digilux 3 , Minolta Rokkors and Zenit I 22 / I 50s are revitalised ia a digital age by Leica [ with a lot of help from Panasonic ! ]

I love being able to use lenses from another age , wondering what they have captured in the past - now creating new images on my Mac screen .

I guess this has little to do with photography - a modern lense would be more appropriate / efficient ... and those early , much admired photographers quickly adopted the latest advances in technology .

But there is something wierd and wonderfull coaxing an image from a Rigid I 22 or Collapsible '' clip '' Fed lense - made for just 3 years in the USSR , not to mention an early nickel Elmar from way before I was thought of ...

Sentimentality or what ... ? I'm certified crazeee - wht's your excuse ?

dee
 
My excuse? The Summarit 1.5/5cm, conceived before the war as the Xenon, gives an image wide open that no other lens can replicate. (close it to 5.6 or 8 and it matches most modern lenses btw.)
My Summaron 3.5/3.5cm goggled from 1955 is the best IR lens I have. So actually I don't think one needs excuses, just be thankful that we can still enjoy those vintage gems......
 
Technology affects our minds, and how technology evolves often comes from our ideas of what is improvements of design...

But, the physical world is constant with its laws - which causes things like choosing the right exposure and aperture to be the same challenge now as before...

To me, the M8 has nothing to do with nostalgia - it has to do with evolution. The fact that I am forced to anticipate what shutter, aperture and range setting that is needed even before I raise it to my eye, makes me MUCH more conscious about my choices!

And the same goes for old gear - when one really get into how different optics render particular types of light, then one tend to get much more conscious about the outcome from the gear one uses.

I see it with the different sets of cameras I use. With the D200/300, I tend to end up with lots of pictures that are technically good, but often a bit boring.

With any M-camera, I tend to really LOOK for the picture before making the exposures - and end up with fewer exposures but much more interesting stuff.

With mamiya ZD, I work VERY slow as opposed to very quick which is my normal modus operandi. The result is that 75% of the exposures can actually be printed and shown with my name on them, this NEVER happens with "faster" equipment!

So, how the cameras effects us is part of what makes a picture to me... And that goes particularly when there is some resistance - like with an M or medium format...
 
Hi aniMal .

Obviously , I do not have your experience , but working with the M 8 , and the DIg 3 on manual does require much more deliberation , but this was true of my Minolta SRs , my Fed / Leica copies , Leica II and Kiev 4m .

Srangely ,I have little connection to my Pentax K 10 D - bought to use manual lenses , even though it has a mechanical connection to the lenses .. with the zoom , it's more like a compact camera to me , but the Dig 3 never feels this way , 'cos I use aperture priority and manual a lot .

it has to do with the mystique of old lenses ... but also the familiarity of a camera interface which is familiar .
 
dee said:
Srangely ,I have little connection to my Pentax K 10 D - bought to use manual lenses , even though it has a mechanical connection to the lenses .. with the zoom , it's more like a compact camera to me , but the Dig 3 never feels this way , 'cos I use aperture priority and manual a lot .

it has to do with the mystique of old lenses ... but also the familiarity of a camera interface which is familiar .
Click to expand...
Dear Dee,

Can you use Pentax screw-mount lenses on the K10D (I assume it's digital from the 'D')? I've been thinking this would be fun. Bottles like my 135/1.8 Porst...

Incidentally, I completely agree about the interface. Did you see that piece in AP where I argued that all digicams should have a 'Real Camera' mode (manually set everything)?

Cheers,

R.
 
Dee, you'll find a lot of people who agree with you here. Many of us are "lenslubbers," after all.

I realized this about myself when I found I could not bring myself to sell some of my older lenses when I bought faster, newer ones.

While there ain't nothin' like a modern aspheric like, say, the Leica 35/1.4 ASPH to give unbelievable clarity wide open, something is also lost. The old lenses often draw in a way that I like. So if I can use them, I do.

I think old lenses are like time machines. The wider you open them up, the further back in time you go. And even stopped down, they often draw things a little more gently. A little less microcontrast, a bit smoother bokeh. This can create beauty, just as surely as the newer lenses can win resolution tests and pop off the page with a sharpness that almost looks artificial.

Some of this is generational. If you grew up looking at classic photography of the 1930s - 60s, you may appreciate the aesthics of older lenses where a younger person might see only flaws. For instance, I love the visual cues that tell me "this is available light photography." Someone else might say, "it isn't sharp enough." Chacun a son gout.

Sometimes I want maximum clarity. But there are times when I take out my dual-range Summicron, or my "Sonnarski" (a 1950s Jupiter-8), or even the dreaded Canon 50/1.2, and look for something that matches how they see.

The M8, having no anti-aliasing filter, imposes the character of the camera less than most DSLRs, and the character of the lens truly comes through. This is one of the beautiful things about the M8. Since it will take any lens that fits a Leica, you have the entire history of LTM and M mount lenses to choose from.

Plus, the M8 can go from near-medium format smoothness at ISO 160 to fast-film graniness at 800, you have another dimension to choose from. And since the controls are where a camera's controls have always been, one is more directly in contact with the medium than if you are inputting parameters into nested menus.

This may not be that important to the general public, nor to the average DSLR user, but they don't know what they're missing.

--Peter
 
Last edited:
Sorry to drag this thread OT...

jaapv said:
My excuse? The Summarit 1.5/5cm, conceived before the war as the Xenon, gives an image wide open that no other lens can replicate. (close it to 5.6 or 8 and it matches most modern lenses btw.)
My Summaron 3.5/3.5cm goggled from 1955 is the best IR lens I have. So actually I don't think one needs excuses, just be thankful that we can still enjoy those vintage gems......
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I have two of the lenses you've mentioned. The Summaron has too much fungus to be usable unfortunately.

The Summarit, though, is my primary lens for the M3. Can I ask what exactly is it you like about the image it renders? Here is an image of mine shot with the Summarit wide open(or another), and I really like the feel of these images. I'm just unsure whether it's the film, developing or lens that gives the image it's character. My results are a bit inconsistent and I'd love to be able to improve in that area 🙂
 
I cannot say in words. I attach a picture. It is a happy lens...

Pat.jpg


It is naive to suppose any lens built before this week is no good. Mankind has been building lenses since the late 18th century, Seidel's seminal work on aberrations which is still valid, dates from 1856. And Leica would be unable to build excellent lenses 100 years after that?

Another Summarit shot

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Thanks Roger and Peter - with ASdee it's dee'ficult to work out the '' why '' behind something - I certainly love those Summarit shots , and , to be honest , I do not need anything more modern ... but my Fed pics have a similar feel , so that sometimes I can't tell what I should be looking for ?

I shall have to look up the suggestion that cam-corders should have a fully manual option - I don't use one .. but how on earth are those new to
''considered snapshots '' ever gonna learn anything on an auto everything ?

Somewhat tentatively , I have been trying out a late , new J 8 - and at around f 5.6 it makes fine new baby images [ many of my Russian lenses either won't focus properly or foul the adapter [ ordinary I 22 and later I 50 collapsibles ] at least this one is smooth and easy to use !

I poured over those 30s monochrome images , and loved the colour films of the 50s / 60s - not to mention those 3D circular slide things with 60s pics from all over the world - to me , even all this computer stuff can't compare with that experience ...

However , my daughter can't see what the fuss is all about .. but to her and most , an I-pod is Hi - Fi , whereas I am still on EAR 509 valve amps !

It's a different world !
 
Roger , there is an adapter to use screw lenses on the K 10 D .. but it loses all mechanical connection ... I simply bought a K mount 50 f 1.7 and 28 f 2.8 which retain manual function and aperture priority metering.

To be honset , I prefer my Leica Dig 3 with my old Rokkors - no coupling , but instant easy Leica M style switching to metering functions .

I also use an I 50 and I 22 from my old Zenits with a terrible Russian 39 / 42mm adapter now stuck permanently in what was a perfectly good 42 / 4/3rds adapter !

But that little blasck I 50 and hood looks just so right on a dee-ranged finder Digilux 3 or black L1 body !

Regards dee
 
dee said:
Roger , there is an adapter to use screw lenses on the K 10 D .. but it loses all mechanical connection ... I simply bought a K mount 50 f 1.7 and 28 f 2.8 which retain manual function and aperture priority metering.

To be honset , I prefer my Leica Dig 3 with my old Rokkors - no coupling , but instant easy Leica M style switching to metering functions .

I also use an I 50 and I 22 from my old Zenits with a terrible Russian 39 / 42mm adapter now stuck permanently in what was a perfectly good 42 / 4/3rds adapter !

But that little blasck I 50 and hood looks just so right on a dee-ranged finder Digilux 3 or black L1 body !

Regards dee
Click to expand...

Dear Dee,

Thanks. I'll talk to Leica about it.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom